On Tuesday 9th Aug I visited Open University to listen to the inaugural lecture of Prof Agnes Kukulska-Hulme – The Mobile Mind: learning differently with mobile devices. More and more I am getting a better picture of what it means to learning in the digital age. The lecture left me reflecting even more learning in the connected, networked, digital age and helped advanced my thinking of how I am visualising collaborative learning or knowledge-building. The lecture also left me reflecting on a session that transpired on the previous evening.
Monday evening sparked the opening of the Caribbean Educators Online Conference (COEC). Prof. Curtis Bonk presented an appraisal of the ‘flat world’ of learning. To my thinking, the keynote challenged our assumptions about learning and put forward the notion of learning as something that is collaborative, multifaceted and self-directed. The challenge to rethink our held assumptions of learning leads to the need to make sense of learning in the ‘flat’ digital age.

To begin, I think unpacking the notion of collaboration and collaborative learning is worth some deliberation. While collaboration is often deemed as working together for common purpose it is often confused with the notion of cooperation. The subtle difference between the collaboration and cooperation is nuanced in the way collaboration is perceived by some practitioners – “I give, you take; you ask, I share.” Collaboration has deeper meaning and application and I have written on this previously. However, does collaboration have different meanings and applications between disciplines? It is appears easy to contrive an answer that addresses this question and I am left thinking even deeper into that regard following Camille’s mention of Geert Hofstede during the session. But what exactly is that culture of collaboration that is worth exploring? Perhaps we could start exploring what is proposed by Geert Hoofstede Hoofstede and Evan Rosen. I used Rosen (2007) in arguing for a case for collaboration in my research but Hofstede’s (1984) perspective on culture’s consequences provides fodder for crafting a stronger argument for a culture of collaboration in education and online learning. Thereby advancing an understanding of a culture of collaboration that help make sense of effective learning designs in the ‘flat’ digital and ‘muddy’ terrain of learning in this digital connected world.

What I present in the ensuing section seeks to make a claim for aspects of this culture of collaboration within education. While the argument is not set in stone it presents a standing point for navigating through rushing mesh of data that flows through the internet.

It seems more and more there is a blurring in the formal and informal learning divide and this helps to shape the argument for understanding the culture of collaboration in education further. While most of us are wedded to the notion of informal and formal learning, Jane Hart (website) provides an insightful deconstruction that factors intentionality, context and agency aspects of learning:

1. IOL – Intra-Organisational Learning- how social media tools can be used to keep employees up to date and up to speed on strategic and other internal initiatives.
2. FSL – Formal Structured Learning – how educators (teachers, trainers, learning designers) as well as students can use social media in education and training – for courses, classes, workshops etc.
3. GDL – Group Directed Learning – how groups of individuals-teams, projects, study groups etc – can use social media to work and learn together (a “group” can be just two people, so coaching and mentoring fall into this category),
4. PDL – Personal Directed Learning – how individuals can use social media for their own (self-directed) personal or professional learning
5. ASL – Accidental & Serendipitous Learning – how individuals, by using social media, can learn without consciously realising it (aka incidental or random learning).

(Hart 2009)

Taking Hart’s conceptualisation further Jarche (2009), proposed an interpretation of self-directed learning which juxtaposes intentionality in both the individual group and organisational contexts in which attention is given to self-directed learning in the matrix where the personal-directed, group-directed and intra-organisational learning are seen as requiring a lot of self-directed learning. Jarche’s matrix (see below) provides a design representation this conceptualization.

source:http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Screen-shot-2009-11-14-at-11.26.05-AM.png

These deconstructions of the informal and formal learning divide leads us to rethink design for learning in the online setting. Thus designing for learning or designing for collaborative knowledge-building, is more than just a focus on content it requires a deeper understanding of what it means to collaborate. What is presented here proposes understanding self-directed aspect of collaboration in online settings that beckons us to rethink our designs in a context that is marred by complexity.

References:
Hart, J., 2009. Social Media FOR learning – Part 2 – Social Media for Working & Learning. Social Media FOR learning – Part 2. Available at: http://janeknight.typepad.com/socialmedia/2009/11/social-media-for-learning-part-2.html [Accessed August 10, 2011].

Hofstede, G.H., 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage Publications, Inc.

Jarche, H., 2009. Social media and self-directed learning. Social media and self-directed learning. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2009/11/social-media-and-self-directed-learning/ [Accessed July 4, 2010].

Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2011. Inaugural lecture – The Mobile Mind: learning differently with mobile devices – Berrill Stadium. Available at: http://stadium.open.ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?s=1&whichevent=1735 [Accessed August 10, 2011].

Rosen, E., 2007. The Culture of Collaboration 1st ed., USA: Red Ape Publishing.

I previous blog posts I gave some attention to the social and technological aspects of network learning. This was in no way negating the cognitive aspects of network learning. In fact, perhaps my attention is supportive to the excessive attention given to technology and technological tools that draws attention away from the cognitive aspect learning that takes place within network learning. In the following reflection, I give some attention to distributed cognition and particularly Connectivism as ways of making sense of the cognitive aspect of network learning.

Distributed cognition is linked with the work of Salomon (1997) and others who advocates the idea of distributed resources within the environment mediating the learning process. This is a dynamic, complex process that promotes that learning takes place in a number of ways through collaborative and technological mediating means. Therefore a basic premise of distributed cognition is that learning is something that extends beyond the individual to include complex interaction with other individuals and artefacts within their environment (Hollan et al. 2000). Siemens (2005) takes this further by describing learning in the distributed online setting as something that occurs within networks of human and non-human artefacts where using various tools, individuals establish connections to personal networks and communities of practice (Siemens 2005). This appears however to imply that learning is distributed but also takes on situated characteristics for learners and therefore places the individual as a central part of this process. In Connectivism, learning is defined as:

a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. (Siemens 2005, p.5)

As a developing framework Connectivism has provided much insight into how online environments should be designed to allow individuals to easily form connections. However, knowledge is promoted as the construction of connections to nodes of information (networks) while “learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks” (Downes 2007). Unfortunately, Connectivism is not clear on how individuals actually learn or how individuals make connections between knowledge in the networks, the individual and its application to real world contexts. This I think, remains one if the mysteries of Connectivism particularly since it adopts the radical approach in advancing that knowledge does not reside in human brains. If knowledge and information reside in the network and learning is forming connections, what then occurs in the human brain? What happens to the knowledge and information when individuals form connections? These are some important questions note addressing. Where I think Connectivism gains mileage is on the notion of learning as something that occurs through interaction (connections) with human and non-human artefacts and this seemingly draws on a Vygotskian approach. Downes (2007) however, makes a distinction between Connectivism and other theories:
Where Connectivism differs from those theories, I would argue, is that…these other theories are ‘cognitivist’, in the sense that they depict knowledge and learning as being grounded in language and logic. Connectivism is, by contrast, ‘connectionist’. Knowledge is, on this theory, literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. It may consist in part of linguistic structures, but it is not essentially based in linguistic structures, and the properties and constraints of linguistic structures are not the properties and constraints of Connectivism.

The statement “…set of connections formed by actions and experience” above, arguably, draws some parallels to other theories and this I think is where some down play Connectivism as a learning theory that deserve to standout on its own. Kop & Hill (2008) for example, ascribes Connectivism as a framework for web-based activity and an epistemological framework for distributed knowledge, but underplays its significance as a learning theory. Kerr (2006) and Verhagen (2006) also argue against Connectivism as a new learning theory. What Kerr (2006) points to is, that the previous works of Vygotsky, Clarke and Lave & Wenger all account to some of what Connectivism alludes to. These arguments have implications for understanding how individuals make decisions on how connections are established or evaluated or, what actions or activity would constitute a connection. It seems to me that individuals must make some choice or decision with what connections they make. And this is not something that is dependent entirely to the network. Am I missing something here? Comments welcomed.

References
Downes, S., 2007. What Connectivism Is. Available at: http://www.downes.ca/post/38653 [Accessed November 12, 2009].

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. & Kirsh, D., 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 7(2), 174-196.

Kerr, B., 2006. A challenge to connectivism. Bill Kerr: a challenge to connectivism. Available at: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/12/challenge-to-connectivism.html [Accessed November 12, 2009].

Kop, R. & Hill, A., 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103.

Salomon, G., 1997. Distributed cognitions, Cambridge University Press.

Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Verhagen, P., 2006. Connectivism: A new learning theory. 2006, Available at: http://www.surfspace.nl/nl/Redactieomgeving/Publicaties/Documents/Connectivism%20a%20new%20theory.pdf [Accessed August 8, 2010].